PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. N v. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15914-DB WA No. 1065 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT APPEAL No. 1065 OF 2024 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. K. P. THIMMEGOWDA, S/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 92 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT KONKALAMANE, KONKALAMANE POST, CHICKMAGALURU TALUK, CHICKMAGALURU DISTRICT 577101. REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY, SRI K. T. KRISHNAMURTHY, S/O K. P. THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, AGRICULTURAL COOLIE, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT KONKALAMANE, KONKALAMANE POST, CHICKMAGALURU TALUK, CHICKMAGALURU DISTRICT 577101. (BY SRI NAIK NITYANAND VENKATARAMAN, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANT AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, TO THE LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, MULTI STORIED BUILDING, BANGALORE 560001. Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15914-DB WA No. 1065 of 2024 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHICKMAGALURU DISTRICT, CHICKMAGALURU 577101. 3. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, BHADRA WILDLIFE DIVISION, CHICKMAGALURU DISTRICT, CHICKMAGALURU 577101. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, CHICKMAGALURU 577101.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.03.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.23106/2015 BY ALLOWING THE SAID WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY BY PASSING SUCH ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) Heard learned advocate Mr. Naik Nityanand Venkataraman for the appellant and learned Government Advocate Mr. K. S. Harish for the respondent and its authorities. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15914-DB WA No. 1065 of 2024 2. This appeal is filed by the appellant/petitioner challenging the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 23106/2015 dated 16.03.2022, whereby the learned Single Judge rejected the petition. 3. The petitioner was a resident of Dabgar in Madla Village, Chikkamagalur Taluka and District. He had constructed a residential house and owned one acre of land. The Government initiated acquisition proceedings for the purpose of establishing the Bhadra Wildlife Sanctuary. In the year 2001, the Deputy Commissioner published a list of individuals who had been awarded compensation under the rehabilitation package. The name of the petitioner was reflected at Sl. No.1 in the said list. The Government of Karnataka, by order dated 28.03.2001, finalized the rehabilitation and resettlement package. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted a representation to respondent No. 2, seeking allotment of land and a house site in accordance with the rehabilitation scheme. However, the said representation was not considered. 4. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant/petitioner preferred a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent- - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15914-DB WA No. 1065 of 2024 authorities to consider his representation dated 10.03.2015. The learned Single Judge, vide the impugned order, held that the benefits under the rehabilitation scheme had already been extended to the family members of the appellant, namely his children, and that, as per the scheme, each family was to be treated as a single unit. In light of the benefits conferred upon the appellant’s children, the learned Single Judge concluded that the appellant was not entitled to any further relief. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Naik Nityanand Venkataraman appearing for the appellant, submits that the lands were acquired in the year 2000 and the rehabilitation and resettlement package was ordered on 28.03.2001. It is contended that the family members of the appellant had effected a partition under a registered Partition Deed dated 06.05.1998. In view of the said partition, it is submitted that the appellant’s family ought to be considered as a separate unit for the purpose of the rehabilitation scheme. 6. The learned advocate further submits that the Ration Card was issued in the year 1995, much prior to the partition, and that necessary corrections were subsequently made by deleting the names of the married daughters and sons who were residing - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15914-DB WA No. 1065 of 2024 separately. It is contended that the Ration Card cannot be relied upon to treat the separated children as part of a single unit. It is further submitted that the Deputy Commissioner had prepared a list of beneficiaries entitled to compensation under the rehabilitation scheme, wherein the name of the petitioner was reflected at Sl. No. 1, while the names of his children appeared at Sl. Nos. 44, 46, and 50. It is argued that since the appellant and his children were treated as separate units for the purpose of compensation, the same principle ought to be applied in the matter of allotment of land and house sites. 7. Learned Government Advocate Mr. K. S. Harish appearing for the respondent-authorities, submits that the Ration Card at Annexure-R2 reflects the list of family members, and all such members are to be treated as a single unit. It is further submitted that the land bearing Survey No. 46, measuring 1.35 acres, was acquired, and the names of the petitioner’s sons were recorded as Khatedars. The three sons, namely K.T. Manjunatha, K.T. Chandra, and K.T. Venkatesha, were allotted land in accordance with the rehabilitation scheme. Learned Government Advocate further contends that the scheme was formulated in the year 2001, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15914-DB WA No. 1065 of 2024 whereas the petitioner submitted a representation seeking allotment of land and a house site only in the year 2015. In view of the inordinate delay and laches, the request cannot be entertained. 8. Having considered the submissions of the learned advocate for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the appellant submitted a representation on 06.04.2015 seeking allotment of land and a house site in accordance with the rehabilitation scheme dated 28.03.2001. The letter issued by the Office of the Conservator of Forests and Director, Bhadra Tiger Reserve, Chikkamagalur, dated 05.02.2015, is available on record. This letter, addressed to respondent No.2, clearly indicates that the house owned by the appellant was vacated pursuant to the acquisition proceedings and that he was duly compensated. Further, the reliance placed by the respondent-authorities on the Ration Card to contend that the appellant and his children constituted a single family unit is untenable. The Ration Card pertains to the year 1995, whereas the partition was effected on 06.05.1998, and the acquisition and rehabilitation scheme was implemented in the year 2000-01. Notably, the names of the children residing separately due to partition had been deleted from - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15914-DB WA No. 1065 of 2024 the Ration Card, thereby negating the contention of the respondent-authorities. 9. The respondent-authorities have treated the appellant and his three children as separate families/units and have awarded compensation accordingly, as reflected in Annexure-F. The name of the appellant appears at Sl. No. 1, while the names of his children are recorded at Sl. Nos. 44, 46, and 50. Having granted compensation individually to the appellant and his children for the acquisition of land, the respondent-authorities cannot now be permitted to contend that the appellant and his children constituted a single unit and that, by virtue of land being allotted to his children, the appellant is ineligible for the allotment of land and a house site. 10. The letter issued by the Forest Authorities further establishes that the house of appellant was vacated for the project, thereby entitling him to benefits under the rehabilitation package. The statement of objections filed by respondent No. 2 also confirms that compensation was paid to the appellant’s three children towards the acquisition of land. However, the appellant himself was displaced from his residential house, as evidenced by the letter dated 05.02.2015 (Annexure-J) issued by the Forest Department to - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15914-DB WA No. 1065 of 2024 respondent No. 2. Prima facie, it appears that the appellant has accrued a right to claim benefits under the scheme due to his displacement from his residential house. The registered Partition Deed dated 06.05.1998 substantiates the contention of the appellant regarding the partition. Notably, this partition was not part of the record in the earlier proceedings. The consideration of the Partition Deed cannot be denied on technical grounds merely because it was produced for the first time before the Court in this appeal. The appellant is asserting his entitlement to benefits under the scheme due to his displacement from his residential house. If he qualifies for such benefits under the scheme, he ought to be granted the same in furtherance of the objective of the scheme. 11. However, the Partition Deed was not placed before the respondent-authorities for their consideration. In light of the Partition Deed, the appellant is to be treated as a separate unit for the purpose of the rehabilitation grant and the allotment of a house site. The representation submitted by the appellant is supported by relevant documents, and he is entitled to due consideration of his claim for benefits under the rehabilitation scheme. Before directing the respondent-authorities to consider the appellant’s - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:15914-DB WA No. 1065 of 2024 representation, this Court holds that the appellant is to be treated as a unit for the purpose of the rehabilitation grant and the allotment of a house site in accordance with the scheme dated 28.03.2001. 12. The order of the learned Single Judge, rejecting the prayer to consider the representation in light of the Partition Deed and the subsequent entries in the Ration Card, is incorrect. The appellant has presented sufficient grounds to warrant interference with the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
Decision
O R D E R (i) The order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.23106 of 2015 dated 16.03.2022 is hereby set aside. (ii) Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the representation dated 06.04.2015 in light of the letter dated 05.02.2015 at Annexure-J, issued by the Office of the Conservator of Forests and Director, Bhadra Tiger Reserve, Chikkamagalur, as well as the Partition Deed dated 06.05.1998. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:15914-DB WA No. 1065 of 2024 (iii) The above directed exercise shall be completed within a period of ten weeks from the date of service of this order. Sd/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 96